Is it worth it to sell my standard model library for $25? If it's not, then what will make it worth it?

I'm seriously contimplating registering a trademark for my model library name, but this can cost up to or more than $2000.

I will be updating my model library as technology advances, but only the professional version will be updated...the standard edition will still only be one level texture and animated meshes, whereas the profesional version will be upgraded constantly to support new model file formats, skeletal animation, weigted vertices and anything new that comes out.

You're looking at about $150 plus for the proffesional version, and I'm sure the price will rise as the library is tweaked to utter perfection and speed.

So I ask you, is it worth it?

WhatEver

04-13-2001, 01:41 PM

The reason I ask now is because my trademark search came back positive. I can register it now if I want to.

Hull

04-13-2001, 05:43 PM

The real question is rather:

Do we really want it?

There is alot of model libraries out there, and most of them are uniquely adapted to a further developement, resulting in a game being sold on the market.

What you must ask yourself is this:

Does anybody really want my product?

Do a poll, or release a freeware test version to independent developers for feedback.

It might be better to discontinue work on a product that wont be good enough for the market.

You might be better off implementing your library from now on and make your own game with it instead.

On the other hand, continuing work on the library may result in an outstanding product that most developers can't afford to do without.

I'm shooting off into the distance. I feel that at first it will be a bad investment, 'cause frankly nobody is going to know about it.

I'm aware that there are free model libraries out there already, that I haven't even really looked at to see how well they're made :/. Then I ask myself these question
"does their library do more than mine?"
"Are they gonna keep improving it like I want to improve mine?"
"If they don't make money for making a model library, won't they get discouraged and stop updating it?"

I'm trying to look beyond what people want right now, but rather look at what people want in the future. If I make my library the best that it can be, and the easiest to understand, then I think I have a shot.

I've decided I'm going for this. My goal is to make a library that people will feel comfortable using, and I'm confident that they will. People don't get anywhere if they don't take chances, so it's my turn to step up and take that chance.

Now I'm going to ask everyone in here; do you want or need a model library that you don't ever have to worry about getting outdated?

All I ask for is support. If you help me, I can help you. That's the way this world works.

Thanks

WhatEver

04-13-2001, 07:00 PM

I do have a website, but the name of the website is the name I want to trademark. I don't know how the law works when it comes to advertising a logo/name before it's trademarked.

If you could point me to some information that states that I'm safe with my logo/name, then I'd gladly point you to my web page.

Michael Steinberg

04-13-2001, 11:24 PM

I'd rather like a book about what and how you did the stuff. I want the knowledge, not the implementation. I like to spend my money on books.

I realize that every programmer is creative, and is driven to learn everything and do everything themselves. I was like that once, but I started to recognize that it isn't always best to do everything on your own.

Way back when, I was trying to make a 3D engine. I was still programming in DOS and I didn't even want to start programming in Windows. I saw OpenGL and I told myself that I wanted to know how to make a 3D engine before I use one. There was one problem though. The guys who made OpenGL have been doing 3D for a long time, and there was no way I could learn fast enough to start making my 3D games, so I gave in and started learning OpenGL. I'm glad I did because it taught me to use whatever resources I could in my games instead of developing them all on my own.

HFAFiend

04-14-2001, 08:58 AM

To be honest, I believe you would be best off (and the lib would have the most sucess) if you offered it (with source) for $25 or so, but not try to make it a buisness. Don't bother with a trademark unless you KNOW you have a market. (Just my $0.02)

WhatEver

04-14-2001, 09:23 AM

Hmmm, I think you're right; I should include the source code with it huh? How can I protect the source code? Copyrights? Anybody want to help me make an EULA?

kaber0111

04-16-2001, 10:44 PM

man dude..
your way to paranoid
heh

rts

04-17-2001, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by WhatEver:
Hmmm, I think you're right; I should include the source code with it huh? How can I protect the source code? Copyrights? Anybody want to help me make an EULA?

You probably aren't going to like this, but...

Free Software is the way. Yes, I'm one of *those* kinds of guys. The GPL is the best way of protecting your work on all kinds of levels (from the practical to the moral).

Well, I'm sure this will touch off a massive flame war, but, so be it. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

LordKronos

04-17-2001, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by rts:
Free Software is the way. Yes, I'm one of *those* kinds of guys. The GPL is the best way of protecting your work on all kinds of levels (from the practical to the moral).

Well, I'm sure this will touch off a massive flame war, but, so be it. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Your right, it will start a flame war. The guy wants to make some money and protect his investment. You are saying the way to do this is to give it away free? Where exactly is the money in that? The only companies I know of that make money from free products do it though technical support and merchandising. Somehow, I dont think these apply to his situation.

Sometimes, I think I could go off for days about the "free software movement".......lets stop while I'm still calm.

Michael Steinberg

04-17-2001, 09:18 AM

I don't think that free software applies well to a world where having the computer switched on costs money for power... where one has to buy food, houses, cars.

It would be the greatest world when everybody would do it all for free...
but! there are currently many free projects twice, and therefor there are other jobs not filled. Who would bring away the dirt for you when he could be programming on something?

rts

04-17-2001, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by LordKronos:
You are saying the way to do this is to give it away free?

You may want to read confusing words (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html) first. I didn't say "give it away free"... I said "put it under the GPL". There's a difference.

Michael Steinberg

04-17-2001, 09:22 AM

yeah, gnu... I don't like gnu from its idea because people are bad.
Ever heard about illegal software?

rts

04-17-2001, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Michael Steinberg:
I don't think that free software applies well to a world where having the computer switched on costs money for power... where one has to buy food, houses, cars.

Again you are confusing "free" as in "gratis" with "free" as in "libre".

GNU Free Software is about "free" as in "libre", not "free" as in gratis.

It's unfortunate that English didn't inherit different words for free-as-in-speech and free-as-in-beer like Spanish, French, Italian, Latin, etc.

rts

04-17-2001, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Michael Steinberg:
yeah, gnu... I don't like gnu from its idea because people are bad.
Ever heard about illegal software?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Sorry. :p

Michael Steinberg

04-17-2001, 09:46 AM

If every hobby programmer gets the software for free, how to verify professional programmers don't use it ilegally?

rts

04-17-2001, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Michael Steinberg:
If every hobby programmer gets the software for free, how to verify professional programmers don't use it ilegally?

I still don't understand. "getting stuff for free" is not the goal of Free Software. Think free-as-in-speech, not free-as-in-beer. I think I read on another thread that your mother tongue is German... in which case you should think of "freie Software" and not "kostenlos Software".

There is no such thing as "using free software illegally"... I think you're worried about "piracy". It's impossible, by definition, to "pirate" Free software (how I loath that word).

Hope this helps.

Michael Steinberg

04-17-2001, 11:43 AM

Well, I think the idea of the GNU license, is that everybody can use the software under license, as long as he gives credits and doesn't use it commercially. Wasn't it like that?

Michael Steinberg

04-17-2001, 11:52 AM

Just read the text on gnu.org...
You even can use it in commercial projects... and you can sell it...
but I don't understand it. Can WhatEver make his work a gift to me, and I can sell it then? Certainly not. Can he sell it to me, and I have to make a gift to others? Huh? I simply don't see a possibility to connect commercial with free.

rts

04-17-2001, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Michael Steinberg:
Well, I think the idea of the GNU license, ... as long as he ... doesn't use it commercially. Wasn't it like that?

Nope. That's not correct at all. Here is some suggested reading:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

and anything else on the http://www.gnu.org/ website.

LordKronos

04-17-2001, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by rts:
You may want to read confusing words (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html) first. I didn't say "give it away free"... I said "put it under the GPL". There's a difference.

You said:

Free Software is the way. Yes, I'm one of *those* kinds of guys. The GPL is the best way of protecting your work on all kinds of levels (from the practical to the moral).

He was wanting to know what to do with his work, and you told him "Free Software is the way".

As far as that confusing words page:

Free software is a matter of freedom, not price

And several other references like that. Saying "free software" isnt about price but about freedom just sounds plain stupid to me. It makes it sound like your software has a will to be free, or like you are being oppressed by a government that wont allow you to give your software away for free if you want.

LordKronos

04-17-2001, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Michael Steinberg:
I don't think that free software applies well to a world where having the computer switched on costs money for power... where one has to buy food, houses, cars.

Thank you, exactly how I feel. I think when I start to see some success in the free Lamborghini movement, maybe then I will start believing in the free software movement.

Michael Steinberg

04-17-2001, 12:05 PM

I find these both texts are too general (it's probably my english)
But they don't make any difference between the one who sells and the one who buys.

Now, the idea is
- you have the binaries
- you have the code
- you have the right to change the thing
- you can give it to others

And the last point I don't understand. When you bought it under the gnu license from another one, are YOU allowed to sell it or even to give it to others???
That are actually the worst text I ever read, as they cover the topic like it would be a roman, being very nonspecific.

rts

04-17-2001, 12:11 PM

He was wanting to know what to do with his work, and you told him "Free Software is the way".

Right. Which doesn't mean "give it away".

And several other references like that. Saying "free software" isnt about price but about freedom just sounds plain stupid to me. It makes it sound like your software has a will to be free,

Well, it does. "Information wants to be free" (libre). I suggest doing a websearch on the subject of "memes", or try this:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html

or like you are being oppressed by a government that wont allow you to give your software away for free if you want.

Again, nobody is talking about "giving away for free". And what you describe isn't a reality, but could be if certain people get their way.... read :
http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html
http://www.salon.com/tech/log/2001/02/15/unamerican/index.html
http://onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2001/03/08/unamerican.html

rts

04-17-2001, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by LordKronos:
Thank you, exactly how I feel. I think when I start to see some success in the free Lamborghini movement, maybe then I will start believing in the free software movement.

Never heard of GNU/Linux? *BSD? How about the Internet? Yup... all built on Free Software.

The most popular web server (Apache) on the Internet is you guessed it... Free.

You should get out more often http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

rts

04-17-2001, 12:19 PM

I find these both texts are too general (it's probably my english)

You read all that already? Wow. Anyway, you may want to try the German version at http://www.gnu.org/home.de.html

And the last point I don't understand. When you bought it under the gnu license from another one, are YOU allowed to sell it or even to give it to others???

Yes. That's part of the freedom the GPL confers to you, the user.

That are actually the worst text I ever read, as they cover the topic like it would be a roman, being very nonspecific.

I don't know what you mean by "like it would be a roman".

Michael Steinberg

04-17-2001, 12:29 PM

With like a roman, I meant that they're written like a letter to a best friend... don't know how to express... http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

When you, the user, can sell it again, what stops you from selling exactly the same version for a smaller price?

Michael Steinberg

04-17-2001, 12:30 PM

Only the home page is german in your link...

rts

04-17-2001, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Michael Steinberg:
With like a roman, I meant that they're written like a letter to a best friend... don't know how to express... http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Say it in German then. I have access to two Germans in this office who will translate for me http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

When you, the user, can sell it again, what stops you from selling exactly the same version for a smaller price?

Nothing at all. Your price can even be $0.

HFAFiend

04-17-2001, 01:10 PM

I respect that the guy would like to get something from his work (I also respect open source). Quite frankly, if he GPL'ed it, and gave it away for free, but asked for donations, I would donate (as I probably will buy it if you do sell it with source).

WhatEver

04-17-2001, 02:03 PM

My brain!!! It's going to explode!!!

I'm not sure what to do any more.

Most of the sourcecode/libs that are free aren't really free. You bought the code when you bought the hardware to use the code on...ie DirectX and OpenGL. Everyone has bought these libs. Every time you buy the hardware I might add.

When people give away their code, it's a donation. It's yours to do whatever you want with.

I don't think I'm being paranoid either. Source code is like the blueprints to a product...except source code can be easily copied unlike a normal product. A normal product would cost time and money to copy.

I think the free source code movement started when individuals like myself wanted to get credit for their work, hoping a game developer might come across it.

I think we've found the downside to free source code. There are so many free libs and source code out there that everyone thinks it should all be free.

If you think that all source code should be free, then all software developers should give you their source code. If you think about it, they would lose money if they did that. It would be like undermining your own hardwork.

Software is a tricky buisness. It's so easy to just copy and paste. If someone puts 1000 hours into developing a lib, then someone who obtains the source code without permision could easily add it to their program without a trace.

I've decided to sell it without source. This should actually be no problem simply because everything is contained in a class. You can use inheretence to add your own stuff to it. I think that's fair. The only reason you would even need the source code is if you wanted to optomize what's already coded...but if you wanted to, you can just add your own optomized code. You're happy, I'm happy, and I can continue to make the library better with the money I make. The more money I make, the more time I can spend on the library.

Anyway, here's another demo that I made using my library. It can detect point collision.
Bounce Demo (http://www.gamestead.com/bounce.zip)

rts

04-17-2001, 02:24 PM

My brain!!! It's going to explode!!!

I'll stand back then http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

I'm not sure what to do any more.

mmmm... indecision.

Most of the sourcecode/libs that are free aren't really free. You bought the code when you bought the hardware to use the code on...ie DirectX and OpenGL. Everyone has bought these libs. Every time you buy the hardware I might add.

?

I bought a dual PIII 800 recently with absolutely no software. Then I installed Mandrake (http://www.linuxmandrake.com/) from a CD I had previously downloaded.
It gave me a compiler (gcc) and OpenGL libs (Mesa3D), and didn't cost me anything.

But again I stresss the point is not price... it's freedom. Free-as-in-speech versus free-as-in-beer.

When people give away their code, it's a donation. It's yours to do whatever you want with.

Again (and again and again...) I never said give away your code.

I think the free source code movement started when individuals like myself wanted to get credit for their work, hoping a game developer might come across it.

Nope. See http://www.gnu.org/ for a history of the Free Software Movement.

I think we've found the downside to free source code. There are so many free libs and source code out there that everyone thinks it should all be free.

If you mean free-as-in-speech then I agree.
I think all software should be Free (libre).
If you mean free-as-in-beer, then you're talking about something different.

If you think that all source code should be free, then all software developers should give you their source code. If you think about it, they would lose money if they did that. It would be like undermining your own hardwork.

Not at all. You would just need to find a different means of making money. Some companies (like http://www.cygwin.com/) do very well making money with Free Software.

Software is a tricky buisness. It's so easy to just copy and paste. If someone puts 1000 hours into developing a lib, then someone who obtains the source code without permision could easily add it to their program without a trace.

Sure. What's your point?

I've decided to sell it without source.

Entirely your perogative (sp?).

The only reason you would even need the source code is if you wanted to optomize what's already coded...but if you wanted to, you can just add your own optomized code.

Maybe I want to learn how you did something? Maybe I want to port your stuff to some new platform? Maybe I want to make sure you didn't put in any backdoors that are going to fux04 my computer? Maybe...

So many reasons for wanting source http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

You're happy, I'm happy, and I can continue to make the library better with the money I make. The more money I make, the more time I can spend on the library.

Money is a poor motivator. I used to have a link to various psychological studies that show this... maybe somewhere at home.

Anyways... if you're happy with your decision, so be it. You asked for advice, I gave mine, and you're free to ignore it http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Cheers.

HFAFiend

04-17-2001, 02:30 PM

I don't know about others, but the only reason I would buy the software is that I'm interested in learning how you did things. Anyway, still hope you make at least $25 off of it...

WhatEver

04-17-2001, 03:45 PM

rts, you're gonna have to change your wording for the meaning of free. I've read all your examples, and I still don't understand your meaning of free. Explain your meaning as a dictionary would.

I'm not motivated by money at all. I'm motivated by my drive to learn programming and OpenGL, and to share my hard work with someone. Money would help me buy the things I need to further my knowege...like buying books, schooling, 3D software...anything that could help me make a better model library for you. It's all for you. You pay me for the service of creating a model library, and you get a model library in return. That's the way buisness works.

I respect all opinions in here. They will not go unnoticed.

WhatEver

04-17-2001, 04:00 PM

Thank you for your encouragment HFAFiend =D.

WhatEver

04-17-2001, 04:04 PM

rts, I'd like a few examples where a developer has released source code without the intent to boost their popularity. I can't think of any that are open-source. MODs don't count because they're intended to advertise a product and company.

Sounds great in theory, but I found that it was all fairly useless in practice. For the example of games, the chances are that you will only be wanting a very specific set of data so as to limit the processing to be exactly what is necassary, and no more than that. For example, what the point of implimenting a mesh structure that can deal with vertex weighting if you are programming a car racing game? Whats the point of implimenting blend shapes if memory requirements are going to be an issue? If you need further proof, open up Maya or Max, notice how much slower they go because they try to do everything for everyone?

All in all, if a programmer needs to do something in real time, they will investigate it themselves because it is partiacular for their needs. That code could easily be incorporated into future code, and the programmer would have a firm understanding of how it functions and how to impliment it in a way that is fast as possible.

I gave up on file formats quite a while ago and wrote my own plugins to export data from Maya & Max in my own format. My old lib was used to write a program to convert those files into files of my own format. Not that I ever use it, at the end of the day, what was inportant in the code was not the formats it supported, but the actual core data structure's and functions that allowed me to have vertex weighting etc. Once that core is in place, writing a file translator to get data into it isn't going to take me more that a few hours....

In my opinion, the most useful thing for a lib of that kind is as the basis to an app that would be of much use to the average programmer. Why not add extra code to turn it into a modelling & animation package? £3000 is a lot to pay for MAX (£20000 for Maya isn't any better)

[This message has been edited by Rob The Bloke (edited 04-17-2001).]

LordKronos

04-17-2001, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by rts:
Money is a poor motivator

But its a good provider. On the other hand, there are plenty of good motivators:
food, house payment, car payment, medical insurance, clothing, family, entertainment. They make me pretty motivated to get money. The point is that if you can get money for what you want, its a double win. Then you dont have to do something you dont like just to pay for things.

On another note, I am sick to death of hearing "free as in speech/free as in beer", probably as sick to death as I am with the whole free software thing (esp. linux).

How ironic that the GPL is all about "freedom", yet the one thing you arent free to do is use it in ANY way you want (including a closed source program).

And essentially, despite its claim of "free as in speech", it essentially comes down to "free as in beer", because you can take the code and do whatever you want, including give it away. And you know darn well that if a program is legally available for cheaper/free, most people are going to take up that offer. The only time this is generally not true is if they want the support of the developer, which brings this back to my original statement about making money via support/merchandising (likely doesnt apply to his scenario).

I dont mean to be insulting (though its probably going to come across that way, so oh well), but you almost sound brainwashed by the whole thing, as do most (not all) people I hear advocating the free software movement. They use the same catch phrases over-and-over (free speech/beer). Post links to the gnu site over and over and over and over and over and... And they generally have this fanaticism that you generally find in religious cults (thats what I call them) and other groups that try to force their beliefs upon you (I dont believe in abortion, but I dont think I have the right to tell other people not to believe in it).

You said "Free Software is the way". Is it the way to support my family? Is it the way to ensure I have control over who has legal access to my MANY YEARS OF EFFORT? I think its a way to share knowledge. Heck, I even give away stuff for free every now and then (I came up with a few rather unique ideas that I shared on my web site), and I do it all without the need to advocate anything. Heck, I even give TRUE FREEDOM that you dont get from the GPL. My code is free to be used in any way you want. No stipulations. I ask for credit if you use my ideas, but I dont require it.

Good Lord, look how far off topic you have made me go.

rts

04-17-2001, 04:15 PM

rts, you're gonna have to change your wording for the meaning of free. I've read all your examples, and I still don't understand your meaning of free. Explain your meaning as a dictionary would.

I did. Above. Scroll up. Here is what I said:

GNU Free Software is about "free" as in "libre", not "free" as in "gratis".

It's unfortunate that English didn't inherit different words for free-as-in-speech and free-as-in-beer like Spanish, French, Italian, Latin, etc.

I'll elaborate for you (in case English is your only language, and you don't know Spanish, French, Italian, Latin):

In English, free can mean "without cost" or it can mean "liberated". When I say Free Software, I mean "liberated" software. Liberation has nothing to do with cost.

According to {Richard Stallman} and the {Free Software
Foundation}, free software is software that everyone is free
to copy, redistribute and modify. That implies it must be
available as source code. It does not imply that it is free
of charge, so anyone can sell free software so long as they
don't impose any new restrictions on its redistribution or
use.

{This dictionary} is free in this sense, though it is not
really {software}.

There are many other kinds of "free software" in the more
obvious sense of "free of charge". See "{-ware}".

Is that better?

I'm not motivated by money at all. I'm motivated by my drive to learn programming and OpenGL, and to share my hard work with someone.

Great! Me too. That's why I put all my work under the GPL... the GPL maximizes the goals of learning + sharing.

Money would help me buy the things I need to further my knowege...like buying books, schooling, 3D software...anything that could help me make a better model library for you. It's all for you. You pay me for the service of creating a model library, and you get a model library in return. That's the way buisness works.

Sure. I get paid too. Money is good.

I respect all opinions in here. They will not go unnoticed.

Very cool.

Cheers.

rts

04-17-2001, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by WhatEver:
rts, I'd like a few examples where a developer has released source code without the intent to boost their popularity. I can't think of any that are open-source. MODs don't count because they're intended to advertise a product and company.

This is pretty irrelevent. I'm not sure what the point is.

rts

04-17-2001, 04:29 PM

But its a good provider. On the other hand, there are plenty of good motivators:
food, house payment, car payment, medical insurance, clothing, family, entertainment. They make me pretty motivated to get money. The point is that if you can get money for what you want, its a double win. Then you dont have to do something you dont like just to pay for things.

Sure. I like money too. No argument there.

On another note, I am sick to death of hearing "free as in speech/free as in beer", probably as sick to death as I am with the whole free software thing (esp. linux).

Fair enough. You should stop reading this thread then http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

How ironic that the GPL is all about "freedom", yet the one thing you arent free to do is use it in ANY way you want (including a closed source program).

All freedoms have limits. You have free speech, but you don't have the "freedom" to slander, shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.

And essentially, despite its claim of "free as in speech", it essentially comes down to "free as in beer", because you can take the code and do whatever you want, including give it away. And you know darn well that if a program is legally available for cheaper/free, most people are going to take up that offer. The only time this is generally not true is if they want the support of the developer, which brings this back to my original statement about making money via support/merchandising (likely doesnt apply to his scenario).

I love it when people defeat their own arguments http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

I dont mean to be insulting (though its probably going to come across that way, so oh well),

Not at all! This is the most civil discussion on Free Software I've ever had http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

but you almost sound brainwashed by the whole thing, as do most (not all) people I hear advocating the free software movement.

There's quite a big difference between "brainwashing" and "being convinced by reason". I am the later... I know what I believe, why I believe it, and can rationally defend it. That's the complete opposite of brainwashing.

They use the same catch phrases over-and-over (free speech/beer).

Only because of a particular inadequacy of the English language. If we all spoke Latin, there'd be no problem.

Post links to the gnu site over and over and over and over and over and... And they generally have this fanaticism that you generally find in religious cults (thats what I call them) and other groups that try to force their beliefs upon you

Not unlike the founding fathers of the US. Promoting freedom is a noble goal, in my mind. If you disagree, so be it.

Nobody is forcing you to GPL anything. I advocate it, but wouldn't force anyone.

(I dont believe in abortion, but I dont think I have the right to tell other people not to believe in it).

I believe abortion is murder, therefore I have an obligation to prevent murder and speak out against it whenever I can. To not do so is to implicitly condone it.

You said "Free Software is the way". Is it the way to support my family?

It can be a way.

Is it the way to ensure I have control over who has legal access to my MANY YEARS OF EFFORT?

Well, no. The GPL tries to promote freedom for all, not a few select.

I think its a way to share knowledge. Heck, I even give away stuff for free every now and then (I came up with a few rather unique ideas that I shared on my web site), and I do it all without the need to advocate anything. Heck, I even give TRUE FREEDOM that you dont get from the GPL. My code is free to be used in any way you want. No stipulations. I ask for credit if you use my ideas, but I dont require it.

Beware the man who says he has "TRUE" anything, be it religion or freedom. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

While you may give people the "freedom" to use your stuff in a closed-source program, or in any way they see fit, that doesn't help *promote* freedom, which is another goal of the GPL.

Some people prefer the BSD license (which is sort of what you are advocating). So be it. I believe the BSD license does not promote freedom, but it is free. Depends what your goals are.

Good Lord, look how far off topic you have made me go.

Nobody made you reply. You did so of your own volition, I hope. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Fun conversation.

[This message has been edited by rts (edited 04-17-2001).]

toonse

04-17-2001, 04:43 PM

Let us know how many people buy your library. I suspect it will be very few. There are libraries out there that do all of what you said yours does, and more...and are much more stable, and aren't people "learning" how to program by releasing their library.

If you release it as GPL (even as free-beer) with source, then you will reap the benefits of multitudes of very smart people inspecting and helping you with your code.

You won't get any commerical developers to buy it unless they are extremely desperate, very small, or very stupid. Probably all three conditions would have to be present for a company to buy a library like that when:

1) There are already LOTS of very stable very robust professionally developed middle ware libraries that are very cheap

2) There are already LOTS of very stable very robust libraries that are GPL, Open Source, what have you

3) Any company or individual worth their salt as a programmer could duplicate your effort in a fairly small amount of time.

My advice...release your library as "free ware", whatever definition you choose to use. Say if people really like it they can send you $20 or whatever. That model works, and has worked ever since Shareware came about in the mid 80s. You simply antagonize people by forcing them to buy a totally unknown "no source" product that they cannot test and probably cant get decent technical support on.

My 2 cents

LordKronos

04-17-2001, 04:53 PM

All freedoms have limits. You have free speech, but you don't have the "freedom" to slander, shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.

In that case, everything under every license is free. You are free to use it or not use it. Windows isnt GPL, but I am free to use it however I wish, add on to it/improve it, and even sell my modifications/improvements (and that covers a majority of the cornerstones mentioned on the GNU site). Kinda takes all the "specialness" away from GPL in my view.

I love it when people defeat their own arguments
How did I defeat my own arguments? I claimed that GPL essentially means "for free", which is what I was claiming all along. As for the statement about making money from support/merchandising, this does not negate my "for free" point. What if I dont want to be in the business of tech-support or merchandising? How then do I make my money?

Well, no. The GPL tries to promote freedom for all, not a few select.

But it doesnt promote freedom for all. It restricts how you can use it.

WhatEver

04-17-2001, 04:54 PM

Rob The Bloke, yes. I would use yours until my own library was a match to yours.

Two things would happen.

1) I would get the chance to make a game sooner.
2) It would encourage me to learn more so I can make a library equal or better than yours.

WhatEver

04-17-2001, 05:01 PM

Why not add extra code to turn it into a modelling

It is coded to edit the model, but not modify the model. For example: it can't delete and add elements.

[This message has been edited by WhatEver (edited 04-17-2001).]

rts

04-17-2001, 05:23 PM

In that case, everything under every license is free. You are free to use it or not use it.

That's a very very narrow definition of "free".

Windows isnt GPL, but I am free to use it however I wish,

Nope. You can't reverse-engineer any of Microsoft's binaries in any way. It's in the EULA. That's just of many things you can't do.

add on to it/improve it,

How do you do that without the source code?
Twiddle bits in the binaries?

and even sell my modifications/improvements

Again, forbidden by the EULA (you should really read that thing one day).

How did I defeat my own arguments?

You claimed people would starve (in other words) writing GPLed code, then went on to show how they wouldn't.

I claimed that GPL essentially means "for free", which is what I was claiming all along. As for the statement about making money from support/merchandising, this does not negate my "for free" point. What if I dont want to be in the business of tech-support or merchandising?

Then don't be in that business. Take up some other business that you'd rather be in.

How then do I make my money?

Any way you want that's legal. For me, I make my money writing code.

But it doesnt promote freedom for all. It restricts how you can use it.

We went over that already. The restrictions are there to further its promotion. The GPL does not discriminate among people, however, so yes, it does promote freedom for all.

Cheers.

LordKronos

04-17-2001, 05:55 PM

>add on to it/improve it,
How do you do that without the source code?
Twiddle bits in the binaries?

In the simplest manner, its called an API.

>and even sell my modifications/improvements
Again, forbidden by the EULA (you should really read that thing one day).

Then I guess they need to go after all those people that make shell plug-ins, device drivers, systems utilities, etc. Funny that Microsoft would publish all these API specs about how you can hook into various subsystem, integrate applications into the shell, or replace parts its functionality when its all "forbidden by the EULA".

You can't reverse-engineer any of Microsoft's binaries in any way

I thought (though could be wront) that reverse engineering is legal despite what an EULA might say. There are even books about all the unpublished Win API specs that were uncovered through reverse engineering.

rts

04-17-2001, 06:11 PM

In the simplest manner, its called an API.

Uhm... and exactly how do you, say, fix a <a href="http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/Forum3/HTML/002669.html" target="_blank">
bug in GDI32.DLL</a> via the API? That's what I mean when I say "improvement"... I do not mean "writing apps".

I thought (though could be wront) that reverse engineering is legal despite what an EULA might say.

Legislation like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is fast making reverse engineering illegal.

Legislation like the UCITA is fast making these EULA's carry force of law.

Strange times we live in.

lpVoid

04-17-2001, 06:26 PM

gotta be honest, I'm a bit afraid to post on this thread, but what the hell...

WhatEver, I firmly believe you should get paid for your work. You've spent countless hours perfecting your library, and while you're not looking to get rich off it (or at least I hope not), it has been a significant investment of your time....and all of us who spend 12-20+ hours a day taking our radiation baths know that there's just never enough time. Unfortunately, my artist uses Maya, so I don't really need a 3ds lib, but come on, I'd gladly send you a cheque for $25 if your lib made my life easier.

GPL scares the hell out of me. It's probably the future of software, but it seems to me that by accepting it, we're saying that what we do is nothing special, and it's worth no more than oxygen. Guess I'm just a product of ignorance and capitalism :P

Open source dosen't seem all it's cracked up to be either. I don't learn from studying or tweaking other's code. I don't know about the rest of you, but when learning a new language or API, typing in samples from some textbook and fiddling with the code does me no good. I have to do it myself. I'd much rather look at a game or app and spend hours trying to come up with my own theories on "how they did it." If I could just look up the source, I'd just be cheating myself. Innovation comes from trying to solve problems on your own, not just improving on existing designs.

Anyways, that's just how I feel, and I'm sure that plenty of people can easily show me the gaps in my logic. Distributing source with binaries just feels like I'm opening up my skin and saying "hey, look at my intestines! poke around if you like. if you need a foot or two, just take it!"

As soon as I send in my trademark info to the trademark office I can give you the url to my webpage. I don't care at this point if my $325 goes to waste towards my trademark because someday maybe the trademark will be usefull http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/biggrin.gif. It's $325 to submit the trademark application. It turns out I didn't need a lawyer.

mcraighead

04-17-2001, 06:52 PM

I agree with most of what lpVoid said.

I'm really not a fan of GPL. In fact, the whole phenomenon of OSS confuses and, at times, disgusts me.

I like to get paid for my work. I like my company to get paid for selling my work, because it means I get paid, and it means my stock is more valuable.

Sure, my company currently gives away my work as free, but that's because my software is not my company's business. It's the hardware my software helps sell.

RMS himself -- that man scares the hell out of me.

My advice is: do whatever makes you the most money. Make as much money as you can. Don't let anyone tell you that you really "should" give your work away for free. Don't let anyone guilt you into thinking that you're making too much money.

On that note, I'd like to quote a passage from Atlas Shrugged.

"Don't you ever think of anything but d'Anconia Copper?" Jim asked him once.
"No."
"It seems to me that there are other things in the world."
"Let others think about them."
"Isn't that a very selfish attitude?"
"It is."
"What are you after?"
"Money."
"Don't you have enough?"
"In his lifetime, every one of my ancestors raised the production of d'Anconia Copper by about ten per cent. I intend to raise it by one hundred."
"What for?" Jim asked, in sarcastic imitation of Francisco's voice.
"When I die, I hope to go to heaven--whatever the hell that is--and I want to be able to afford the price of admission."
"Virtue is the price of admission," Jim said haughtily.
"That's what I mean, James. So I want to be prepared to claim the greatest virtue of all--that I was a man who made money."

- Matt

rts

04-17-2001, 07:02 PM

OK...

since it hasn't sunk in the first 20 times I said it, I'll say it once more:

I like to get paid for my work.

Me too.

I like my company to get paid for selling my work, because it means I get paid, and it means my stock is more valuable.

Me too.

Sure, my company currently gives away my work as free, but that's because my software is not my company's business. It's the hardware my software helps sell.

I can make 10 times as much money as I do now as a software engineer by dealing drugs, or pimping girls. Sound advice? Not really.

But I agree with what you're trying to say...

Make as much money as you can.

Yes! Money is good.

Don't let anyone tell you that you really "should" give your work away for free.

Again (and again and again) I never said that.

Don't let anyone guilt you into thinking that you're making too much money.

Sound advice.

On that note, I'd like to quote a passage from Atlas Shrugged.

Like a Bible passage... you still don't think Objectivism has religious qualities? http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

OK OK that was unfair, and that particular part of Atlas Shrugged has validity.

But please... to anyone who replies to this... the issue is not money. I want whoever started this thread to be the wealthiest man in the world. That would be very cool by me. Money is good. Capital is good. Free markets are good. Freedom is good. The GPL is a vehicle by which I believe we can maximise the area under the radar graph that has "Money" at one point and "Freedom" at the other. I've yet see any other system (either actual or proposed) make a bigger area.

lpVoid

04-17-2001, 07:24 PM

rts - i still don't understand how GPL/OSS == freedom. If I subscribe to the GPL idea, am I making some sort of political/social statement? Or am I giving others the freedom to do what they want with my work?

I'm sorry, but my code is my intellectual property, and I damn well better have the right to tell others what is and isn't acceptable use. I also expect the laws of my country to protect those rights.

I'm not trying to argue with you or anything, I guess I just don't understand. I'll go read up about the subject now before I yap myself into a corner...

Dave

rts

04-17-2001, 07:49 PM

rts - i still don't understand how GPL/OSS == freedom. If I subscribe to the GPL idea, am I making some sort of political/social statement?

I would direct you to the GNU website, the Open Source website, and a general websearch at AltaVista for a better treatment of how GPL == freedom than I can give here (I recommend the websearch.. along the way, you will undoubtedly run into GPL != freedom sites that way, and will get a more balanced view from which you can make an informed decision).

Yes, you are making a political/social statement, but that's beside the point.

Or am I giving others the freedom to do what they want with my work?

Not really. They have to abide by the terms of the GPL. The freedom is not absolute laissez-faire (what freedom is, except possibly "freedom to live"?)

I'm sorry, but my code is my intellectual property, and I damn well better have the right to tell others what is and isn't acceptable use. I also expect the laws of my country to protect those rights.

Government granted monopolies are the hallmarks of anti-capitalist regimes.

I'm not trying to argue with you or anything,

Oh... could have fooled me http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

I guess I just don't understand.

Fair enough.

I'll go read up about the subject now before I yap myself into a corner...

That's the best thing anyone has said in this whole thread http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Hull

04-17-2001, 08:00 PM

We can actually have total freedom WITHOUT GPL.

When a company wants me to develope solutions, they have to PAY for it.

GPL seems to assume that every possible solution is already finished, floating around in the virtual capatialistic world but held secret by some evil mastermind.

It tries to drain the knowledge out of the sources in a nice package called a licence.

Well we don't need that... so we ignore it.
http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/cool.gif

WhatEver, my tip to you is this:

Develope a complete product ready for the market, filling a demand (scientific simulators, medical purpose applications, scientific help programs, ass-kicking games etc.) But never release anything that isn't 'standalone',and therefore vulnourable to codemites.

Always continue working, never throw anything away because someone (or some 'thing') wants you to. The results are not your assets, but your ever evolving memes of your mind are.

A model library might not be a good product on the market, but you can offer it and your work to a game company that wants one, giving you a salary for your trouble. Hence make an income.

This way you leave all the EULAs to them, and all you have to worry about is getting your piece of the pie.

(And what a BIG piece it will be without GPL)

rts

04-17-2001, 08:04 PM

We can actually have total freedom WITHOUT GPL.

I would be very interested in learning how.

When a company wants me to develope solutions, they have to PAY for it.

As well they should.

GPL seems to assume that every possible solution is already finished, floating around in the virtual capatialistic world but held secret by some evil mastermind.

Wherever did you get that idea?

Well we don't need that... so we ignore it.

We? Maybe you do, but a large population of coders "out there" don't.

Hull

04-17-2001, 08:25 PM

Their loss. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/cool.gif

GeLeTo

04-17-2001, 11:25 PM

Filing a copyright deposit with the Library of Congress is just 30$: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/
This will let you collect statuatory damages of up to $100,000 if someone infrigues the library licence (if you don't copright it - you can only collect actual damagaes wich are hard to evaluate)
If you are not an US programmer - you don't need to file a copyright because of the international copyright treaty obligations.

Nil_z

04-18-2001, 12:16 AM

I am not quite clear about Free Software, mainly because of my tongue, I think http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif But let me give an example:
If WhatEver(or anyone else) release his library as free software, and I pay $25 for it. Then I distribute it to my friends, then my friends give it away to their friends. Now a lot of people is using WhatEver's library, and WhatEver only gets $25. Is that fair?

Or maybe I have made some mistake. Does the free software license allow me to do what I do as I metioned above?

LordKronos

04-18-2001, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by Nil_z:
If WhatEver(or anyone else) release his library as free software, and I pay $25 for it. Then I distribute it to my friends, then my friends give it away to their friends. Now a lot of people is using WhatEver's library, and WhatEver only gets $25. Is that fair?

Yes, that is the case. Which is exactly why I said that although "free software" is about "freedom", it eventually boild down to being "for free" because of this. Yes, the same sort of thing happens with piracy, but at least there you have some legal recourse (you can usually get ISP to remove it) and it stays relatively underground (only those who know how to navigate through 5000 XXX banners, how to avoid the "Click here to enter" links, or how to use hotsite generally get access to it). With a GPL licencse, they can say "oh, you spent 2 years and $2,000,000 on this? And you expect 100,000 people to pay you $40 for it? OK, I'll give you my $40, and then I'll cut myself a piece of the pie and sell it for $5 a shot. Oh that's going to cut into your sales? Well I guess thats the price of 'freedom'." And you have NO legal recourse. The scum lives off of your hard work (sounds a bit like a lot of the people social security to me).

WhatEver

04-18-2001, 03:49 AM

But never release anything that isn't 'standalone',and therefore vulnourable to codemites.

I'm confused when I read this(I just woke up http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif). Are you saying that releasing code isn't stand alone therefor I shouldn't try to sell it?

I was hoping that someone would buy my library and make a game from it(they would make money from their game and they only had to give me $25 for it...good investment if you ask me).

If I wanted to I could take my library and use it as part of my resume to get a job in game development, but I'd rather help new game programmers first.

Where can I go to have a license made for my source code?

I will definatly copywrite my files.

lpVoid

04-18-2001, 04:13 AM

ok, things are clearing up now, thanks to the almighty coffee bean, and I've just finished reading about as much as I can take off the GNU website, and it really dosen't change my understanding of this situation/debate. Quoting passages from there won't do anyone any good, so I'm just going to present what I think is the biggest failings of the idea.

I just started playing GLTron recently. Man, that's a fun game. But, I think there are 3 areas that I'd like to improve upon:

1. Bot AI. sometimes they just do circles and they can turn tighter than I so it's not a competition anymore.
2. Netcode. No one can argue that!
3. I'd like to have an afterburner or something. Maybe just some random powerups.

So GLTron is opensource, and if I had the time, I could easily open it up and make the modifications. Well, after working 2 days on the project, my coworkers ( who are addicted as well ) love the modifications, and want to pass along my version to their friends. Why not. While I'm at it, why don't I change the intro screen. Why don't I also remove everyone from the credits except myself. Why don't I start calling it lpVoidTron and make my own website. My version of that game becomes a hit, and it's distribution is beginning to rival doom. Some game magazine interviews ME about the game, and god save them, they didn't even bother to do their homework. Why should I tell them that I really didn't write the game. So while Umbach put his heart and soul into the game, I slapped on some boilerplate features and took all of the credit.

Honestly, wether something like this can actually happen, can and should be debated, but I don't think it's too far fetched. I'm sure that somewhere in the GPL license, what I've described is probably prohibited, but GPL dosen't even respect the export laws of governments, so why do you expect them to protect you?

That's it for me.....this time http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Dave

[This message has been edited by lpVoid (edited 04-18-2001).]

rts

04-18-2001, 07:20 AM

I just started playing GLTron recently. Man, that's a fun game. But, I think there are 3 areas that I'd like to improve upon:

So far you're describing one of the best strengths of the GPL...

Why don't I also remove everyone from the credits except myself.
....

So while Umbach put his heart and soul into the game, I slapped on some boilerplate features and took all of the credit.

I'm sure that somewhere in the GPL license, what I've described is probably prohibited,

Section 1 of the GPL says you must copy stuff verbatim.

Section 2 of the GPL says you must prominently document what you change and the date you changed it.

Taken together, these two sections imply a history.

And if you disgregard the GPL altogether, then section 5 kicks in.

but GPL dosen't even respect the export laws of governments,

Uh... reread section 8 again.

so why do you expect them to protect you?

Them = the government or the GPL?

rts

04-18-2001, 07:38 AM

And you have NO legal recourse. The scum lives off of your hard work (sounds a bit like a lot of the people social security to me).

You are using a protocol (HTTP) designed by Berners-Lee... every time you use that protocol by visiting a website (say, this board), do you send him a cheque? No? Feel guilty about it? No? Why not? Poor guy, put his heart and soul into this Web thing, and now he's starving to death on the streets of some foresaken urban nightmare. No, wait, no he's not.

Network television derives its profits from selling advertising. Advertisers only pay to put their products on networks where people watch advertisements. When you shut your eyes and plug your ears during a commericial, are you "stealing" the programming now? Feel guilty about it? No? Why not? You scum. Think of the poor network employees you will lose their jobs because you flipped channels during the commercials.

Read this from Ben Franklin:

In order of time, I should have mentioned before, that having, in 1742, invented an open stove for the better warming of rooms, and at the same time saving fuel, as the fresh air admitted was warmed in entering, I made a present of the model to Mr. Robert Grace, one of my early friends, who, having an iron-furnace, found the casting of
the plates for these stoves a profitable thing, as they were growing in demand.

To promote that demand, I wrote and published a pamphlet, entitled "An Account of the new-invented Pennsylvania Fireplaces; wherein
their Construction and Manner of Operation is particularly explained; their Advantages above every other Method of warming Rooms
demonstrated; and all Objections that have been raised against the Use of them answered and obviated," etc. This pamphlet had a good effect. Gov'r. Thomas was so pleas'd with
the construction of this stove, as described in it, that he offered to give me a patent for the sole vending of them for a term of years; but I declin'd it from a principle which has ever weighed with me on
such occasions, viz., That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.

An ironmonger in London however, assuming a good deal of my pamphlet, and working it up into his own, and making some small changes in the machine, which rather hurt its operation, got a patent for it there,
and made, as I was told, a little fortune by it. And this is not the only instance of patents taken out for my inventions by others, tho' not always with the same success, which I never contested, as having
no desire of profiting by patents myself, and hating disputes. The use of these fireplaces in very many houses, both of this and the
neighbouring colonies, has been, and is, a great saving of wood to the inhabitants.

(Source: Autobiography of Ben Franklin)

Was Franklin a communist? I don't think so.

Your other problem, besides a complete lack of understanding of how Free Software works, is you're trying to put old business models on a new paradigm. It is as though you are trying to sell horsewhips to people who drive cars, because at one time in the past people got around with horses. You won't succeed that way. You will have to seek a different model. Maybe you should sell motorists gasoline... ?

Once you get it out of your head that Free Software has nothing to do with price but rather freedom, you'll be a lot further along in understanding the entire phenomenon that has given rise to some of the most useful, stable and elegant code around.

I think I have made my point abundantly, and have seen nothing except irrelvent appeals to emotion, slippery slope fallacies and straw men attacks. That is not how one makes one's point in a debate of ideas. Rather, stick to reason, and logic. (Please).

lpVoid

04-18-2001, 08:01 AM

I guess this has turned into a philosophical debate more than anything, and I think now we're at the point where we might as well be aruing over which is better, intel vs amd, christianity vs hinduism.

Something to note, though....
Did you notice how many times in your posts you mention "your problem is..." Man, we're all just voicing our opinions, and as soons as we start pointing our fingers and throwing around insults we lower both ourselves and our positions. Emotion has no place here, and if somehow i've insulted you, I truly apologize as that was never my intent.

So, after having said that, I think it's cool that you believe so strongly in the GPL/OSS idea, and I'll humbly submit to your widsom/logic.

As a final note, though, I still think it's the same as giving me all the blueprints and components to a nuclear weapon, and then telling me not to blow something up http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

may your code be free of bugs,
Dave

[This message has been edited by lpVoid (edited 04-18-2001).]

LordKronos

04-18-2001, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by rts:
You are using a protocol (HTTP) designed by Berners-Lee

I will look this up, but most major developments like this are either made by or based off of government funded research (including universities). And on top of that, HTTP isnt open source, its an open STANDARD. Quite a different thing. If I come up with a revolutionary idea for a game, I thing other should be free to try and copy it. But THEY need to put in the effort of creating it. I dont think they should be able to automatically inherit my code.

Network television derives its profits from selling advertising. Network television derives its profits from selling advertising.....When you shut your eyes and plug your ears during a commericial, are you "stealing" .....

As a final note, though, I still think it's the same as giving me all the blueprints and components to a nuclear weapon, and then telling me not to blow something up http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

I dunno... I have no problem with people buying and owning and carrying (and building, if so inclined) guns, but I'd still admonish them not to go on random shooting sprees. Maybe I didn't get what you're tying to say there.

may your code be free of bugs,

Debugging is the process of removing bugs... therefore, programming is the process of putting them in http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Cheers.

clucches

04-18-2001, 09:27 AM

First you should make your program work, and then sell it.

rts

04-18-2001, 09:34 AM

And on top of that, HTTP isnt open source, its an open STANDARD. Quite a different thing

Not in the context of your argument. You argue that it isn't "fair" that people not pay for other's hard work. Defining a protocol is hard work. Why don't you pay him? Maybe his idea was based on other ideas.... either way, it's just proving my point more and more.

Actually, frie does not equal kostenlos. See? This is why I repeat myself... it doesn't seem to be sinking in http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

If the vendor can decide if he simply wants to sell the same thing for less money with the SAME RIGHTS, he for one will find more customers as the original author and steal all of that guy’s customers.

This is called "competition".

Then this moronic remark that one can make the most money with drug trafficking and prostitution

Moronic? You know the kind of money you can pull down doing that? More than I'm making I'll bet... tax free too! http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

This is about principle… I wouldn’t pay ANY money for WhatEver’s library, because I will not learn anything from that and I already have written a 3d file reader myself.

Fair enough. I think WhatEver is going to find out most people think the same (see Toonse's comments above), which is why I suggested the GPL route.

Last, your faultfinder attitude is pissing me off. Nobody is trying as hard as you to point out the other’s “mistakes”. If you would give a meaningful explanation, you would be much more helpful.

Hmm? For ever post of mine there are two pointing out my "faults"... this is how debate, discussion and learning work. I gave (what I thought to be) a meaningful explanation several times over.

Remember... nobody (I hope) is forcing you to read this.

Enjoy reading

Thanks.

mcraighead

04-18-2001, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by rts:
here you are, freely helping out us poor OpenGL dumb-asses (myself King of the OpenGL Dumb-Asses... woohoo!), and not getting anything in return.

Not true; I'm here because (1) _I_ want to and (2) it benefits my company, and thus me.

Helping other people has absolutely nothing to do with it. Doesn't even enter into my mind.

- Matt

rts

04-18-2001, 02:08 PM

Not true; I'm here because (1) _I_ want to and (2) it benefits my company, and thus me.

Right. If anyone would see through that one, I would have expected it to be you http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

So, now you see the value of altruism... ?
maybe?

PeterK

04-18-2001, 02:14 PM

The best things in life are undeserved.

mcraighead

04-18-2001, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by rts:
So, now you see the value of altruism... ?
maybe?

No, I don't, and I completely reject the idea that I am here for altruistic reasons. I am here for utterly selfish reasons.

- Matt

rts

04-18-2001, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by mcraighead:
No, I don't, and I completely reject the idea that I am here for altruistic reasons. I am here for utterly selfish reasons.

You can also make an argument for "selfish GPL". If I make a semi-useful bit of code, but don't have the time to finish it off, and I can get at least one other person who thinks it is useful to do the work for me, yay.

I also release code GPLed in the hopes that others will too, so I can "selfishly" see how they do things (read: learning). I can even use their code to build better widgets (or whatever).

I too do things to get something back, GPLing code included.

WhatEver

04-18-2001, 03:49 PM

Basicly my library is for 3D and OpenGL newbies, or people who want to make a game in 3D for practice.

No! What if windows was sold under GPL? Could I buy a copy for 100$ with all rights and then sell 1000k copies of for 90$ each?
That is no competition (or is it?). Competition is to independently (in means of work... knowhow can't be hold inside) develop compareable results.

After all, in the market (not software), things are already free. Everybody can just open the printer and look how it is done. But this knowledge is under protection. You CAN'T however copy it legally (Patente in german). Also no usual guy can copy it so easily.

I also wouln't learn from the source code. You always need description (or much time!). I think everyone here is already giving his/her knowledge away for free here (that is an interaction... we get help from others for that).

Imagine you having programmed a REALLY INCREDIBLE program. The program of them all. Nobody could program anything near that. Would you sell it under the GPL ?
After two weeks everybody knows how to do it and 20 teams try to copy it. You can still be proud to have founded that... but you'd have lost plenty money (now you can argue that 20 companys would offer you a job, but that would be the case either way).

And... you can learn without giving your source code away.

Korval

04-19-2001, 11:08 AM

Guys, I do believe that rts is pretty much Stone Deaf (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html) on this issue. Any attempts to convince him of any error on this issue is impossible.

Michael Steinberg

04-19-2001, 11:14 AM

Korval... this one really KICKS ASS... the illustration is just amazing! It's a great thing to be into realtime 3d computer graphics. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif =] d8=

rts

04-19-2001, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Korval:
Guys, I do believe that rts is pretty much Stone Deaf (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html) on this issue. Any attempts to convince him of any error on this issue is impossible.

Wrong. My mind is changed with reason, evidence, and logic. I've yet to see any compelling reason, evidence or logic which shows I am in error. I've yet to see anyone point out any flaw in my reasoning, evidence or logic.

I have acknowledged each attempt and answered and (I think) refuted each one.

So, if you have nothing other than ad hominems to bring to this discussion, perhaps you should remain a lurker.

Michael Steinberg

04-19-2001, 11:19 AM

To this point I have not seen any serious discussion nor any serious contributions to this dicussion, from both sides.
I replied to Korva's thing in terms of estatical reasons... Didn't you find the illustration to be good rts?

rts

04-19-2001, 11:30 AM

To this point I have not seen any serious discussion nor any serious contributions to this dicussion, from both sides.

I guess you missed WhatEver's, lpVoid's and mcraighead's thoughtful replies.

I replied to Korva's thing in terms of estatical reasons... Didn't you find the illustration to be good rts?

Yes! The drawings at that site are *awesome*. I even mentioned it in the "1000% off topic" then-vs-than thread (the Grammar Nazi).

I'm even considering buying a print of the Philosopher.

That guys has (art) talent I can only dream of.

Cheers.

Michael Steinberg

04-19-2001, 11:35 AM

I tell you something... I'm really no insider to it. I'm gonna read the GPL and translate it word by word whenever necessary... I'll post here when the time has come.

rts

04-19-2001, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Michael Steinberg:
I tell you something... I'm really no insider to it. I'm gonna read the GPL and translate it word by word whenever necessary... I'll post here when the time has come.

Translations of the GPL in over a dozen languages (including German) are available here:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html#translations

foobar

04-19-2001, 01:11 PM

GPL is essentially a contractual virus! It infects a piece of source code and transmitts itself to every copy and modification of that source.

The only way to remove the virus is to pay (probably a hefty sum of) money to the originator of the virus! How fair and free is that?

If you want to make software free you should give it away with no strings attatched, otherwise you are just as 'selfish' as someone who wants to get paid (shock horror) for an honest days work.

WhatEver

04-19-2001, 01:18 PM

I know what will solve all our everyday problems!!! You can all buy my library http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif.

I agree with the learning thing. No one wants to teach what they have just discovered. You never give the plans away to your competitors. I think a good metaphor would be: "it's alot more rewarding to work for money than to just find it or have it given to you".

This place will teach you everything you need to know to make your own model library.

rts

04-19-2001, 01:33 PM

GPL is essentially a contractual virus! It infects a piece of source code and transmitts itself to every copy and modification of that source.

Right. Because one of the GPLs goals is to *promote* freedom/itself (just like any other meme).

Other licenses are free but do not "promote" in such a way (e.g. BSD).

Depends what your goals are.

The only way to remove the virus is to pay (probably a hefty sum of) money to the originator of the virus! How fair and free is that?

Or you can simply not use the code at all... if you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

If you want to make software free you should give it away with no strings attatched, otherwise you are just as 'selfish' as someone who wants to get paid (shock horror) for an honest days work.

I like getting paid too. Everyone does. As I said 678 times already, the issue isn't price, or getting paid, or anything of the sort.

If your goal is free distribution without any regard for promoting said freedom, then the BSD license (or one like it) is for you.